Labelled ‘native informant’ or ‘house arab’ by the illiberal liberals

As the Canadian federal election date draws closer, I can’t get my mind off the niqab debate. I can’t stop thinking about the fact that this one issue demonstrates how voices like mine – fromwithin the Muslim community are routinely ignored, cast aside, betrayed by the illiberal ‘liberal’ West …simply for the crime of not fitting the simplistic tribalist narratives.

Zunera Ishaq – a Pakistani immigrant to Canada just like myself ….took on the government regarding the issue of niqabs during the citizenship oath and won the right to wear a mask in court when no one else is allowed to. She won the privilege to flaunt her alliance with an inflexible, misogynistic, hardline, right-wing, extremist interpretation of Islam in the face of already marginalized, threatened, liberal minorities from within the Muslim community.

Widespread liberal support for her is as distasteful as support for ‘White nationalism’ or ‘Straight Pride’. Except not many liberals can see past the ‘minority’ aspect. Well, the KKK would be a minority in Pakistan, but it wouldn’t mean that we start treating them as liberal heroes if they challenged ‘the majority’.

What if the KKK in Pakistan were prevented from wearing their hoods in court (and elsewhere)? Would that make them liberal heroes? Nope, it would not.

This issue showcases how utterly alone people in my position are. We don’t align with the position of the western ‘right’ on so many things, we are orphaned liberals – abandoned by the left which usually champions ‘equality’ and free speech, stands against the religious right….unless….’Islam’, we are thus pushed into a corner where the only people willing to listen to us are associated with the right…which is not necessarily a compromise everyone is willing to make. But if they do, you can’t fully blame them for wanting to be heard.

But not the whole of the left. I’m on the left, and I haven’t abandoned, and there are many who can say the same. Not enough, but many.

But again, regarding Islam even in the ‘human-rights championing West’, our voices are silenced, left out of the conversation, misrepresented. We continue to be marginalized, targeted with unbelievable bigotry from the left and the right. If we speak out against our own oppression, we are labelled ‘native informant’ or ‘house arab’ by the illiberal liberals.

We are seen as being from the same stock of foreign ‘savages’ by the far-right, and the conversation is hijacked by these two extremes; the xenophobes who wish to cast suspicion and doubt on all Muslims, or the ‘liberals’ who ally with our bigoted Muslim far-right, our oppressors.

I am left with an ache in my gut, and a sinking feeling when I see the hypocritical left, fight against victim blaming, slut-shaming but celebrate it in the form of niqab simply because it is not ‘their culture’, it is not their fight. Their fight is with fox news, Stephen Harper, and that’s it. Their fight for equality ends there. Misogyny is acceptable if packaged as part of a foreign culture.

35 Responses to “Labelled ‘native informant’ or ‘house arab’ by the illiberal liberals”

Nope. I’m not on side with this. The Conservative government has exploited an insignificant event to inflame racist attitudes and get people voting against the progressive parties. What the niqab-weaing, new Canadian won was the right to wear her niqab during a ceremonial oath-taking. Her identity was confirmed beforehand – just as it would be in a court before she’d be allowed to testify.

I’m not a supporter of niqabs because I don’t support anyone being told what to wear – or what NOT to wear. I’m not a supporter of the Conservative Party’s craven – and apparently successful – campaign to make a non-existent race issue a major topic of this election.

Misogyny is not acceptable – whether it’s foreign or domestic. But how would that niqab-wearing woman have been served by being refused the right to take her oath of citizenship? If she refuses to remove the veil in public and she’s kicked out of the ceremony, do you imagine she’ll embrace Canadian culture? Encourage her daughters to do the same? Or will she be locked up in a house in a Toronto suburb, shut off from the opportunities of her new country and even more dependent on her male relatives for survival, unwilling to allow her daughters the freedom to be Canadian.

I’m okay with women wearing niqabs so long as they’re given full access to Canadian culture. I’m prepared to let my country’s ideals stand up against anyone else’s. I’m sure our modernity and progressive, inclusive culture will win out in the end.

So fuck the guilt for insisting that racism and sexism are okay when it’s Canadian born and bred.

I hear people implying that [Prime Minister Stephen Harper is] responsible for the bigoted attacks on Muslim women. Its so intellectually dishonest to hold him responsible for the attacks (and no, I’m not a fan of his), because all he did was state fact, that this is a misogynistic practice. And it is – he did not condone violence or aggression or hate towards Muslim women. In fact, not addressing the obvious elephant in the room, that this regressive practice is harmful and disrespectful towards women, and the fact that it gives extremists anonymity privileges in situations no one else gets them, is what fuels bigotry.

SamBarge:

I’m not a supporter of niqabs because I don’t support anyone being told what to wear — or what NOT to wear.

Eiynah:

The idea that all opposition to the niqab is ‘misguided’ because people assume women are always coerced doesn’t address those grievances that acknowledge some women choose this. It doesn’t address the question, “what *kind* of person fights to perpetuate this?”

In this way, political extremist Islam, non-violent as it may be in this case, is given a pass…its given a foothold to establish itself, to grow and flourish. This is not just about the niqab, this is about the disturbing brand of Islam that is rapidly expanding across Muslim communities.

SamBarge:

I’m okay with women wearing niqabs so long as they’re given full access to Canadian culture. I’m prepared to let my country’s ideals stand up against anyone else’s. I’m sure our modernity and progressive, inclusive culture will win out in the end.

Eiynah:

I am left with an ache in my gut, and a sinking feeling when I see the hypocritical left, fight against victim blaming, slut-shaming but celebrate it in the form of niqab simply because it is not ‘their culture’, it is not their fight. Their fight is with fox news, Stephen Harper, and that’s it. Their fight for equality ends there. Misogyny is acceptable if packaged as part of a foreign culture.

SamBarge:

So fuck the guilt for insisting that racism and sexism are okay when it’s Canadian born and bred.

Eiynah:

People from within the community who’ve personally been affected by forced modesty concepts in the religion are disturbingly excluded from this debate. Everyone talks over those who have suffered through this. And even women like myself who grew up in Saudi Arabia, who have seen morality police caning women’s ankles for their hair showing – we are labelled ‘bigots’ for opposing our own oppression. It’s sickeningly twisted.

Do you think a couple pithy quotes on the internet helps women in Canada? Harper has followed a policy of undermining the status of women for 10 yrs. He has exploited racism to try to limit a woman’s ability to choose (tabling legislation that would limit access to abortion if sex selection was suspected) and setting up a tip hotline for Canadians to report “Barbaric Practices.” He has cut and eliminated funding to programs that work to improve the lives of women and to give dissenters the ability to break out of their repressive communities and engage fully in Canadian life.

Harper specializes in using racism to further his agenda. I beg you fucking self-righteous pardon if I don’t fall in with his plans. I support a free and open society and I DO give minorities the space for their voice. Canada is still a country where people can live as they please. Harper has closed the doors that would help dissenters.

But hey. Let’s ban a woman from taking a ceremonial oath in a niqab. That will strike a chord for justice. Let’s pretend that women in niqabs are getting ID issued with their face obscured even though it isn’t happening because that will make things better.

Yeah. My fight is with Harper and I don’t forget that, even when he says the occasional thing I can agree with (sex selection abortion is wrong, veiling is oppressive). Because I know why he’s saying it and I’m not going down Racism Road with that piece of shit – no matter what a Pakistani ex-pat wants me to do.

My country doesn’t force women to wear the niqab and I will never support a law that forces women to NOT wear a niqab. Because, in Canada, women are free to wear what they choose. As a feminist and a leftist in Canada, I’m going to work to ensure that women are free and have access to resources to improve their lives and maintain that freedom.

I have principles. I live by them. I don’t change my principles based on the culture or religion of the person in question. I don’t compromise my principles because a Pakistani ex-pat wants me to.

Does that make me racist? A coward. Fine. I guess I’m a racist coward because I believe in the freedom of women to choose and the role of government to make sure they have the resources to do so.

I’m Canadian and don’t like Harper. That said, I don’t hate him to the point where I’d defend the Niqab simply because he denounces it.

It so discouraging to see some of Canada’s foremost feminist like Louise Arbour and Margaret Atwood defending this garment. In the meantime the voices of secular Muslims like Djemilla Benhabib, who are against the niqab, are studiously ignored.

This “niqab game” is actually well orchestrated. In France several years ago it was made illegal to go out in public with one’s face covered. But the tenors of the Islamist agenda pushed the issue and wheeled out women willing to cover their faces in public (some may be paid to do so). Naturally they were stopped and fined…some up to 30 or 40 times!

Each time the fines were payed with funds coming from Islamist activists. All of these cases are deliberate provocations authored by twitchy clerical fascists.

They’re trial balloons, all of which need to be popped on the spot.

And as Eiynah states: Misogyny is most certainly acceptable if packaged as part of a foreign culture

So, to be clear, on the question forcing women to wear niqabs, it’s the niqab part you have a problem with and not the forcing part? Cool then.

Atwood has hosted the debate on her Twitter account and her refusal to be suckered into Harper’s racist play is not the same as supporting the niqab. Einyah is part of Atwood’s Twitter conversation on this issue. Atwood isn’t silencing her. She’s giving her a platform. And Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour made a comment based on her extensive knowledge of international law and the Canadian Constitution. She might actually have something valuable to say on the subject, even though she’s not a Pakistani ex-pat.

Canada’s foremost feminists might, maybe, just understand the issue from a feminist perspective. Perhaps you should listen to women’s voices on this subject?

And Louise Arbour’s statements on legal issues are sometimes less than stellar. She claims we cannot legislate what people wear. Try parading about stark naked on Ste Catherine Street and see how quickly you’re ‘legislated’.

Neither Atwood nor Arbour are from a Muslim background.

Perhaps we should listen to more Muslim feminists on this subject.

And as for whether it is forced on women or whether they wear it voluntarily…I’d like to know just how that could accurately be determined.

We do know this though: Those women who ARE forced to wear it almost always do so because of pressure from men.

Try parading about stark naked on Ste Catherine Street and see how quickly you’re ‘legislated’.

Societal norms and legislation around public nudity are not the same thing, and you know it. What a spurious analogy. But, let me indulge you, those attitudes and the legislation are in flux. Women can walk around bare-chested now where they couldn’t 30 yrs ago. Legislative change based on a Charter challenge and social change may catch up to it someday. Perhaps some day, Canadian society will be fine with public nudity. Of course, the Canadian climate will have to change dramatically before that becomes a thing.

Perhaps we should listen to more Muslim feminists on this subject.

Sure. You line up the Muslim feminists opposed to veiling and I’ll line up Muslim feminists opposed to the colonial enforcement of western values by fiat. We’ll see whose line is longer and that will decide the issue. Is that how you want to do it? “Muslim feminists” do not speak with a single voice and most of them are just as wary of the racism in Harper’s comments as they are with the sexism of the veil.

We do know this though: Those women who ARE forced to wear it almost always do so because of pressure from men.

You don’t know that. Society is engaged in oppression and women play an active role in that too. This casting of women as helpless victims dehumanizes them. As Arbour says, you cannot force liberation on someone. Women must come to liberation on their own terms. And that won’t happen if women are shut out of public life by refusing to allow them to engage in it in a manner that they are comfortable doing so.

And as for whether it is forced on women or whether they wear it voluntarily…I’d like to know just how that could accurately be determined.

N.S., the woman in question, has stated that she chooses to wear the niqab freely. She’s gone to court to secure her right to do so. You could listen to her unless you only listen to women you agree with.

In 2001, former High Commissioner Mary Robinson also put her attendance at a Tehran conference on racism and discrimination higher than symbolic messages to oppressed women. She decided to wear a headscarf when many women from non-governmental organizations had refused to do so.

The decline of the left. Debasement and hypocrisy. The “feminism” of fools.

No time to engage in a discussion – neither now, nor probably in the next couple of days – so this is just to share this link, which is a nice juxtaposition of pros and cons (some of the arguments presented there are pretty bad, but my overall impression was really so “nice”, that after reading it I’m even more baffled than before).

This fucking thing again. What is really apparent is how much this debate diverges from typical feminist discourse when it comes to content and style:

First of all, Muslim feminism. A term, which is blurry as fuck, but which is generally used much less stringently than feminism in any other context. There are essentially three types of Muslim feminists: (1) Feminists who happen to be Muslim or who happen to come from Muslim countries. (2) Religious reformers who try to interpret Islamic scripture in a feminist way. (3) Conservative women who try to sell religious orthodoxy as inherently feminist. Type (3) is certainly not limited to the Muslim sphere. Instead, it is one of the commonplaces of social conservatism to point out how women are doomed to unhappiness through (Western) feminist propaganda and how they would find real liberation in accepting their true female identity in their traditional role as mother and housewife. The typical Phyllis Schlafly bullshit. However, the many Western conservatives who peddle this reactionary narrative are never seen as even close to feminist. Nobody speaks of the great Christian feminist Mike Huckabee, who stands up to the dominant feminist dogma of the West to protect the customs and values (including the alternative, marginalized view of femininity) of his community of rural, subaltern people at the periphery of the American empire. On the other hand, there are quite a few Muslim women who promote this shit and who are nevertheless seen as feminist.

Majoritarianism. Many regressive liberals and feminists point out that the majority or a large minority of Muslims supports or is at least indifferent to veiling or the niqab. This allows them to paint Muslim voices that argue against veiling (Eiynah in this case) as unrepresentative. At the same time, the same bunch of people generally supports political positions that are not really majority-compatible and oftentimes downright radical. And of course, all those liberals and feminists who care so much about Muslim authenticity and community “representativeness” would never even think to shut their own faces because they themselves support unrepresentative positions. This has of course to do, with the “Huntingtonisation” and depoliticalisation of the Muslim community, which is prevalent among the identitarian left. “Muslims” must be supported as a whole and not along lines of ideological and political agreement.

Choice. People point out that many Muslim women chose the niqab. That’s certainly true. However, the feminist view on choice in any other matter is usually more complex. It is really not a novel point in feminist theory that choice is both restricted and influenced by patriarchal superstructures. Whenever you bring up things like the wage gap, there will be millions of people swarming around who will lecture you about choice and that it is often times not free even if it seems. And of course, those people are absolutely correct and it is probably one of the biggest achievements of feminist theory to dissect the concept of choice. Only here, all the stuff is dropped.

Free speech and freedom of expression. You can support the niqab-wearing person around who this whole debate exploded from a purely impartial rights-based point of view. You could point out that while the niqab is certainly misogynistic, people simply have freedom of expression in how they dress – no matter if we agree with certain connotations of their dresscode. That would be a position similar to the position of the ACLU e.g. regarding Skokie, Ill.. However, the crowd who was most vocal in favor of the niqab-lady was not the civil-rights-no-matter-what ACLU crowd. It was the safe space, no platforming crowd who generally gets horribly mad at everybody who strains away from the part line. And in consequence, they could not try to argue with radical impartiality when it comes to civil rights and freedom of expression – that would go against their whole fucking mindset. They had to spin the niqab instead into some emancipatory, liberatory entity and here, shit did really hit the fan.

I’m mostly going to have to sit this out, too. Too much right now by far.

Or almost. I will summarize, given as we’re running out of election, here:

1) I’ve much sympathy for Eiynah’s feelings of abandonment, in general. I don’t think she’s wrong that ‘progressives’ too absorbed in other battles splash apostate and progressive voices from majority Muslim countries and communities, clumsily, and unforgivably. It’s a miserable purgatory between worlds to inhabit.

2) I do not however believe the niqab issue should be allowed to suck up any more oxygen than it already has.

3) I think the court made the right decision. Religious freedom in this case does hold trump, as bedevilled as this is.

4) I think Harper and company are the sort of people who will support secular values only when it suits them. In this case, it’s a wedge they hope works for them. Whatever general xenophobia it may aggravate notwithstanding. Even if I thought their actions were the right way to go about this (I don’t), I still wouldn’t vote for them. They’re just playing on fears–one of the few areas this government has ever shown any competence in.

5) If we really want to address conservative religious communities’ frequently very oppressive treatment of their members, we need to make it easier for those members to leave. That includes respecting and recognizing apostate voices, and progressive voices–showing that there is life outside whatever ostracism they face from their erstwhile community–and, speaking of, reducing isolation of immigrant communities in general. Don’t make laws that themselves transgress the charter. Make the secular culture rich, robust, vital, and welcoming.

I *HATE* that there are women who feel obliged (or are forced) to wear niqabs or hijabs (or long dresses or long sleeves or long hair or covered heads or wigs, etc) when they are out in public. But I fail to see how banning these practices frees the women from these obligations – I think it is more likely to inhibit them from leaving their homes.

I also support the right of all people to wear as little or as much clothing as they choose, with the only restrictions being for health and safety. So, yes , if someone wants to walk down Ste Catherine completely naked, I fully support their right to do so. (A few weeks ago when I was on Rue Ste Catherine in downtown Montreal, I saw a few hijabs, but no niqabs and no nudity, though I do see plenty of hijabs and as well as the occasional niqab here in urban and suburban Ottawa.)

And speaking of “barbaric anti-feminist cultural practices”, when was the last time someone questioned the tradition of having a young woman wearing a floor-length dress and face and head-covering, being led by her father to be presented to another man who lifts the veil to expose her face?

However, the crowd who was most vocal in favor of the niqab-lady was not the civil-rights-no-matter-what ACLU crowd. It was the safe space, no platforming crowd who generally gets horribly mad at everybody who strains away from the party line. And in consequence, they could not try to argue with radical impartiality when it comes to civil rights and freedom of expression – that would go against their whole fucking mindset. They had to spin the niqab instead into some emancipatory, liberatory entity and here, shit did really hit the fan.

Maybe the niqab-wearing woman doesn’t *want* to socially interact with anyone else – maybe she just wants to buy her groceries, pick up her kids from school, ride the bus, etc (and if she gets a pensive expression on her face, she won’t have to worry about strange men telling her that she should smile).

Doing so is the ultimate barrier to social interaction

Do you have a similar reaction to people who wear large, dark sunglasses all the time? One might argue that covering the eyes is actually *more* antisocial than covering just the mouth and nose with a niqab. I haven’t heard anyone suggest banning sunglasses lately.

The issue isn’t clothing per se. If anyone is toeing the party line it’s, um, on the other foot. I have no objection to someone wanting to walk around with a toilet bowl over her head. In the street as long as she crosses at the green light (or doesn’t cause a multi-car pileup), and in the theatre as long as she doesn’t yell “fire”. Freedom of dress-speech, etc. And in official circumstances as long as she can be properly identified. But let’s not pretend that there’s not something far deeper and more insidious at work here.

As I said on another thread, the hijab (a less blatant or provocative symbol of religious subservience and misogyny than the niqab) is Islam’s Confederate Flag. Would you allow someone to attend her US Naturalization Ceremony ( (I’m Canadian) waving a large Confederate Flag? Wearing an SS uniform? In theory/principle, as long as it’s not disruptive, and I don’t know how it couldn’t be, I would say yes. But let’s be honest about what is being defended.

One might argue that covering the eyes is actually *more* antisocial than covering just the mouth and nose with a niqab. I haven’t heard anyone suggest banning sunglasses lately.

At which point one might retort that sunglasses-wearing is not gender-specific nor an expected profession of faith whenever one is out in public, and thus not comparable in its social significance to niqab-wearing.

I do not in any way think that the custom of wearing the niqab or hijab is anything but a representation of the disrespect and disregard that Islam has for women. However, I would not go so far as to say that every woman who wears does so as an equivalent of consciously displaying a confederate flag, or a swastika. I think in many cases, women have little choice in the matter if they want to keep the family peace.

And speaking of awful things that happen to Muslim women, I recently heard the horrible news that an appeal has been filed by the Montreal man, who with his wife and son was convicted of killing his first wife and three daughters

*Do you have a similar reaction to people who wear large, dark sunglasses all the time? One might argue that covering the eyes is actually *more* antisocial than covering just the mouth and nose with a niqab. I haven’t heard anyone suggest banning sunglasses lately.*

I know of not a single women killed by male relatives for taking off her sunglasses, thereby shaming the entire family.

I dunno. Niqabs and sunglasses are like apples and oranges.

And yes, the Shafia’s are back. They claim they were convicted solely because of ‘cultural stereotypes’. They’re victims. To listen to their complaint, you’d think the actual murder of four people, one of whom was only 13 years old, is but a mere detail.

My comment about sunglasses was in response to the assertion regarding the *social* significance of wearing a face-covering – that “Doing so is the ultimate barrier to social interaction”.

I will repeat that I abhor the religious and cultural significance of women wearing niqabs/hijabs, whether they are actively forced to or claim to be doing it voluntarily. . But I have not been convinced that forbidding such things in public is something that will go beyond just increasing the comfort of secularists no longer being “forced” to behold offensive displays of religion and actually help the women concerned.

“The Left” aren’t the problem here. If they were it would be easy to provide tangible examples.

I do, for the most part, proudly claim to be a leftist/liberal/progressive. But there are a number of issues on which I feel compelled to stand apart.

Here are just two “tangible examples” (I could cite more but I don’t want to derail the discussion any more than I already have):

* In Canada, 2 preteen First Nations girls contracted a form of leukemia which has a very high cure rate (though the treatment is long and can be very unpleasant for the patient and their family) . In both cases, the girls and their families determined that they wanted to abandon conventional medicine in favour of traditional treatments. One of the girls (Makayla Sault) halted chemotherapy and has since died. (Of course alt-med supporters claim that the chemo she had gone through contributed to her death.) The other (called JJ) continued chemo while also taking alternative treatments (last I heard, JJ was still alive). Despite the fact that the alt-med treatments provided did not seem to have much connection to actual First Nations medicine, many leftists/liberals/progressives considered this to be a triumph in the battle of First Nations against western colonial imperialism. This, despite the fact that the family’s final statement said: “Makayla completed her course. She is now safely in the arms of Jesus.”

* Many leftists/liberals/progressives have been falling all over themselves trying to outdo one another in praise for Pope Francis – this despite the fact that the RC church is still firmly against gender equality, “artificial” birth control, abortion, euthanasia, and any acceptance of LGBT people (beyond saying that Jesus loves sinners).

I think it is positive that immigrants challenge us on how we implement human rights and sometimes that will mean we will have to grant rights to people we don’t support. Support comes in many levels, I could support allowing woman wearing a niqab while at the same time not supporting them actually wearing one.

What I find troublesome is that human rights in cases like this all too often turn into religious privilege. What I fear will happen is that muslims (and other religions with similar dress codes) will be given a choice. Because off course they won’t be forced to wear a niqab. So they are given a choice, they are allowed to let their conscience decide whether they will hide their face during this ceremony or not. But I suspect other people won’t be given such a choice and I suspect that if this would have been a secular person who for whatever reason liked to be masked during this ceremony, the court would have denied him this choice and may still do so, should it happen in the future.

Art 18 of the Universal Decalaration of Human rights state: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

It becomes time people realize that freedom of religion is just a special case of freedom of conscience, where someone lets his conscience be guided by a religion and as a corollary understand that any rule that is rule to conflict with someone’s freedom of religion should simply be cancelled. Because a rule that is only followed by people who conscience is not in conflict with the rule, is not a rule at all.

But I guess for that to happen we need secular people who are willing to go to court to fight for secular people to get the same rights as the religious.

Isabelle Narayana was scolded for “wasting court resources” when was getting a drivers licence, and applied for

her permit at an SAAQ office in March 2014, in full pirate attire, but was denied. Only medical or religious exceptions are allowed to the no-head-covering rule.

Narayana argued that since the exception applies to Muslim women, it should apply to her as well, given her religious affiliation. Court was told she subsequently showed up at an SAAQ office for the photo wearing a head scarf, which she told the court was the costume of a female pirate who happened to be Muslim. The head scarf met SAAQ rules and the photo was taken, but she said she still wanted the court to rule on whether her rights were violated by the original denial.

“I believe that I have the same right to express my personal beliefs and chosen religion as much as someone wearing a kippah, a hijab or a turban,” she maintained.

As if fighting for the acknowledgement of basic human rights of self-determination is a “waste of the courts’ time”

The Conservative government has exploited an insignificant event to inflame racist attitudes and get people voting against the progressive parties. What the niqab-weaing, new Canadian won was the right to wear her niqab during a ceremonial oath-taking. Her identity was confirmed beforehand – just as it would be in a court before she’d be allowed to testify. [cut]

Misogyny is not acceptable – whether it’s foreign or domestic. But how would that niqab-wearing woman have been served by being refused the right to take her oath of citizenship? If she refuses to remove the veil in public and she’s kicked out of the ceremony, do you imagine she’ll embrace Canadian culture? Encourage her daughters to do the same? Or will she be locked up in a house in a Toronto suburb, shut off from the opportunities of her new country and even more dependent on her male relatives for survival, unwilling to allow her daughters the freedom to be Canadian.

Thanks for this, it is eloquently stated. I have not seen any leftist “celebrate the niqab” itself, what I have seen is dissent from Harper’s obvious dogwhistling.

Zunera Ishaq’s insistence on wearing the niqab, an item of clothing foisted upon South Asian women by foreigners, is colonialism on two legs.

If she were wearing a dress would that also be an insistence on wearing an item of clothing foisted by foreign colonialists? What does the Arab invasion of Sindh have anything to do with Ishaq wearing niqab centuries later? What evidence is there of foisting of niqab by foreigners? What evidence is there that it is the result of foreigners invading Sindh rather than foreigners in Keralite entrepots? Isn’t Ishaq Bengali (? I could be misremembering.)? The vast majority of South Asian Muslim women have never worn niqab, so the foisting was pretty unsuccessful, insofar as it existed. I think this whole line of argument is not a good or relevant one.

It is really not a novel point in feminist theory that choice is both restricted and influenced by patriarchal superstructures.

Sure. But I think that conversation about what the choice of niqab means can be had in more honest and decent terms when the legal right to choose to wear/not wear is secure. I wear dresses/makeup/heels and yet I am sympathetic to the critique of these items as patriarchal constructions of the feminine, I think I would not have the space for that kind of sympathy if my choices to wear them were being policed and harangued with racist codewords.

Leila Ahmed’s Quiet Revolution is about young Egyptian women, who are typically from families in which it was not the norm, who take on hijab/niqab as an expression of dissent where the space for dissent was limited. It’s a matter of context. The vast majority of anti-Muslim attacks in the US have been on hijabis, which creates a desire also to wear hijab as an act of visibility/solidarity; I met a hijabi who started wearing hijab regularly after 9/11.